Mark my Analysis of Language Please

[Faraz]

Heyy peeps I thought since im taking tomorrow off (persian written thursday  ) and not seeing my teacher until friday if someone could mark or at least comment on.

Chickens Range Free

Analysis of language use

Jo Smith a freelance writer also a public officer of the (AAR) Australian for Animal Rights organisation wrote an opinion piece on January 2007 on an activists group who had freed a high numbers of chickens from a truck. She is of full support of these actions believing it to be purely appreciable, because of what they have accomplished for the suffering animal of Australia. Throughout her opinion piece she is constantly appealing to animal rights. She praises the activist’s actions implying nobility to their cause.  The article also uses a somewhat powerful image to bring out the thoughts of the reader.

The writer throughout her piece brings use to appeal to animal rights as a method to arouse deep concern for the animals. She believes if we can overcome our animal rights issue we will treat each other better in the long run. Appeals like “the dire plight of the oppressed animals”, “Animals deserve to be free to lead natural lives” and “our furred and feathered friends”.  These make the reader feel more for the animals suffering. A reader might even become aware of the fact that animals do suffer. She is repeatedly using “we” followed by her appeals to include the reader (Australians) in this dilemma.

Jo Smith uses her role in the AAR and the fact that she truly feels for the suffering animals to praise the activists that have taken these actions weather illegal or not. “I understand complete why these actions are taken”, “activists risked life and limb for a noble cause” and “actions which frees caged chicken is justified”. These praises can easily make the readers prospective change, she makes the reader think the way she does and sympathies for the activist, maybe not believing the activist to be noble heroes but will accept what they have done and look at in from a more neutral point of view.

Another thing present in the article which would have had a great impact on the reader was the visual of the three unhealthy looking chickens behind bars. These kind of pervasive visuals make the reader more aware of what is truly occurring. It also arouses deeper concerns on their parts for the chicken and also the kind of chicken they are consuming. The reader might think differently next time they get a choice between free range and caged. Nobody wants unhealthy sick animals in them. Therefore this image can also bring out the fear for the consumers health.
Jo Smith uses well put language into her opinion piece to convey the reader to her views and vision from the use of appeals to animal rights right down to the disturbing chicken’s shown above the text. These can all with ease persuade the reader to think different. Even if the reader is strongly against her beliefs the idea of sick and unhealthy chickens going into her every third night will be frightful. 

Jo Smith uses well put language into her opinion piece to convey the reader to her views and vision from the use of appeals to animal rights right down to the disturbing chicken’s shown above the text. These can all with ease persuade the reader to think different. Even if the reader is strongly against her beliefs the idea of sick and unhealthy chickens going into her every third night will be frightful. 

word count 493

[Glockmeister]

One thing I will mention if that I think it's far too short... and from a quick read seems a bit superficial. You have mentioned the image on the article but not really mentioned how it affects the reader, which considering the prompt specifically mentions the analysis of the image, would be a major loss of points.

The analysis of the article itself is ok, but there's bound to be more techniques than just the one you have listed. You also need to talk about the techniques you have written about in more detail.

There's also a few grammatical errors as well (e.g. "These can all with ease persuade the reader to think different").

Overall, needs improvement. (I'll won't give it a mark, cause I don't have a criteria sheet handy to have a look at the precise mark, but this would be a 4-6 out of 10)

[shinny]

I'll comment quickly as I need to do a language analysis myself very soon actually =T

1. The word count stood out to me immediately as being too short - you need another body paragraph.
2. Try using a sentence involving 'the writer contends that...' in the intro, in a single concise sentence. It's not clear as to what you've identified the contention as; rather, I just see a mess of arguments the writer puts forward and ideas presented - not a clear contention.
3. WAY too much of your own opinion. This is a big no-no as it's meant to be an objective analysis of the article, not your opinion as to how effective it is. Examples of this are 'somewhat powerful image' and 'great impact on the reader', 'These praises can easily make the readers prospective change' and 'Jo Smith uses well put language'.
4. Your analysis is kinda vague at times and you really should be focusing it on some specific details of the issue, which is why they provide a summary of the issue for you. Once again, examples are: ' ...bring out the thoughts of the reader' and ' include the reader (Australians) in this dilemma.'
5. Also at times it's a bit informal, so try your best to maintain an objective and formal register, otherwise it just sounds ridiculous.

Sorry if I've been a bit too harsh =P

[Faraz]

no no nothings to harsh..

I get it but one thing I dont is everyone brings out that my work is short and I have asked my teacher's and other people that have got like a high 30's on english and they said these three pieces shouldnt be any more than 400-600 words. logically how much can u do with 10 mins of reading planning and 50 to write??

This is what my teacher told me:

Intro: which is like a summary

body: is what, how and why
and you ment to use the 3 top used techniques (and if there is an visual that should be one)

and conc

and guys im not aiming for like a 40 plus in english thats just unhealthy for me lol

my aims like a 33-36

[RD]

no no nothings to harsh..

I get it but one thing I dont is everyone brings out that my work is short and I have asked my teacher's and other people that have got like a high 30's on english and they said these three pieces shouldnt be any more than 400-600 words. logically how much can u do with 10 mins of reading planning and 50 to write??

yeah 600 would be a more appropriate amount of words to aim for. Personally I struggle to lengthen my analysis' too so probably try and get more in-depth on things and maybe a bit more specific.
Follow what shinjitsuzx and Glockmeister said and you'll be on your way.

[Damo17]

no no nothings to harsh..

I get it but one thing I dont is everyone brings out that my work is short and I have asked my teacher's and other people that have got like a high 30's on english and they said these three pieces shouldnt be any more than 400-600 words. logically how much can u do with 10 mins of reading planning and 50 to write??

It's not necessarily about the word count, 500-800max I would say but it depends on what you have said in it. Whether you have gone in depth and if you do that you should be able to do 550+ in the time.  

[danieltennis]

Hey, I'm in year 11 and I'm new to language analysis. I've just started writing a practice one, but its not finished yet. Can u guys critique it? Thanks and sorry to intervene.


Encouraging parents to become more liberal rather than implementing strict control for their children’s own protection is the issue in Jane Brown’s opinion piece that appeared in The Daily News on 19th October 2007. In a formal and authoritative tone, Jane Brown downplays the more permissive style of parenting and distinctively generates our collective support by often reasoning a mountain of evidence to illustrate the consequences and downfall of parents overprotecting their children.

Ms Brown commences her article by outlining the flaws of overprotected children in a formal and authoritative tone, ‘one only has to look at teenagers today.’ The writer uses a formal pronoun “one” to illustrate a tone of authority and to remind the audience that she was once a principal who supposedly understand the behaviour of children.  The writer creates a sense of assurance and authority to influence and persuade the reader to the opinions of the writer. The writer then continues using the Induitive mood, ‘Children need to make mistakes’ by using the infinitive word ‘need’ to express a simple statement of facts. This will lure in the readers thinking that it’s natural for children to make mistakes which will teach children to learn how to cope with life.   

The reader is immediately positioned when the writer begins with a grand rhetorical opening, “how much longer will we continue to supposedly protect our young people from the stark realities of life?’ This not only highlights the contentions of the writer, but pivotally positions the reader to accept the terminology that many children of this generation are being blinded by their parents to become more resilient individuals. This manipulates the reader to agreement as they are positioned to think, ‘who can argue with that?’ and forcefully traps the reader in what the writer advocates in.

[Glockmeister]

Yeah, I do count how much words I have written, but depth is more important than word count. If your piece has lots of fluff in it, it's not going to score well.

[Faraz]

how nice of you to steal my post...

  wtf buddy make your own

I would think after -25 karma you would get the idea

[danieltennis]

how nice of you to steal my post...

  wtf buddy make your own

I would think after -25 karma you would get the idea

Sorry buddy. But generosity plays an important part in humanity.

[Glockmeister]

Hey, I'm in year 11 and I'm new to language analysis. I've just started writing a practice one, but its not finished yet. Can u guys critique it? Thanks


Encouraging parents to become more liberal rather than implementing strict control for their children’s own protection is the issue in Jane Brown’s opinion piece that appeared in The Daily News on 19th October 2007. In a formal and authoritative tone, Jane Brown downplays the more permissive style of parenting and distinctively generates our collective support by often reasoning a mountain of evidence to illustrate the consequences and downfall of parents overprotecting their children.

Ms Brown commences her article by outlining the flaws of overprotected children in a formal and authoritative tone, ‘one only has to look at teenagers today.’ The writer uses a formal pronoun “one” to illustrate a tone of authority and to remind the audience that she was once a principal who supposedly understand the behaviour of children.  The writer creates a sense of assurance and authority to influence and persuade the reader to the opinions of the writer. The writer then continues using the Induitive mood, ‘Children need to make mistakes’ by using the infinitive word ‘need’ to express a simple statement of facts. This will lure in the readers thinking that it’s natural for children to make mistakes which will teach children to learn how to cope with life.   

The reader is immediately positioned when the writer begins with a grand rhetorical opening, “how much longer will we continue to supposedly protect our young people from the stark realities of life?’ This not only highlights the contentions of the writer, but pivotally positions the reader to accept the terminology that many children of this generation are being blinded by their parents to become more resilient individuals. This manipulates the reader to agreement as they are positioned to think, ‘who can argue with that?’ and forcefully traps the reader in what the writer advocates in.

First of all, make your own thread next time.

Secondly, you haven't identified the contention! Or if you have, it isn't obvious. I could see that the "Jane Brown downplays the more permissive style of parenting and distinctively generates our collective support by often reasoning a mountain of evidence to illustrate the consequences and downfall of parents overprotecting their children." line might be your intended contention but it reads like something that could go well in the conclusion but not in the intro.

You've mentioned the tone twice. Don't need to do that.

Induitive? infinitive? Watch the words you are using. Don't use words you do not understand... that's a sure fire way to piss off an examiner.

It's looking pretty ok at the moment overall though.... keep working on it.

[shinny]

For the issue of word count, this year they'll be expecting more given we have 1 less essay to write. In previous years, they had to write a language analysis AND a point of view, so both were quite short. Now, aim for around intro, 3 body paragraphs on the article/articles with about 2 things to analyse in each, 1 body paragraph on the image, and then a short conclusion.

And as for danieltennis, why not just make your own thread; this is just getting messy...seriously.

[Faraz]

Yeah Im generous... go make a new post

[/quote]
Sorry buddy. But generosity plays an important part in humanity.
[/quote]

Yes I am fully with you on that,  but being socially handicapped (your issue) doesnt.

[Glockmeister]

Or get a mod to split posts

[danieltennis]

Ok, ok. My language analysis isnt finished yet, thats why i dont wanna make another thread. sorry